# Legally Brunette: Lindsay Clancy & The Jurors

An episode of [Two Ts In A Pod with Teddi Mellencamp and Tamra Judge](https://invisiblenetwork.ai/podcast/1477524410), 16 Sep 2026, 15 min.

Audio: https://podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/pscrb.fm/rss/p/mgln.ai/e/28/traffic.omny.fm/d/clips/e73c998e-6e60-432f-8610-ae210140c5b1/b85867f1-c5ec-44e0-9f79-b34d0160000c/6a28ebb1-7f62-4004-b23d-b4c7001f78e7/audio.mp3?utm_source=Podcast&in_playlist=59f37943-e628-4810-8c3b-ae2b00156477

Jurors from the Lindsay Clancy trial are speaking out, but is it a good call? Do we understand why the one holdout juror had his doubts? Where did the other jurors go wrong? Plus, will Lindsay Clancy be receiving a Presidential pardon? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

## Transcript

[0:02] Speaker 1: Hi guys, welcome to Legally Brunette. I'll be your host today,
[0:04] Speaker 1: Emily Simpson and.
[0:06] Speaker 2: Shane.
[0:07] Speaker 1: Today we're just going to do a little update on
[0:09] Speaker 1: Lindsay Clancy, just because the jurors have been just out
[0:13] Speaker 1: and about and speaking and talking and doing interviews and
[0:15] Speaker 1: all the things, so.
[0:17] Speaker 2: Starting their Instagram accounts.
[0:18] Speaker 1: Starting, yes.
[0:19] Speaker 2: Creating YouTube channels.
[0:20] Speaker 1: Building their following. What do you think about that? Do you.
[0:23] Speaker 2: I think it should be prohibited to some degree.
[0:25] Speaker 1: I kind of do too, because.
[0:26] Speaker 2: At least like a 30 days or something, like a
[0:28] Speaker 2: cooling off period.
[0:30] Speaker 1: Yeah.
[0:30] Speaker 2: You know, and then, okay... Then if you still want
[0:32] Speaker 2: to talk, you can talk and hopefully things have calmed
[0:35] Speaker 2: down and they're not just, because they're just blabbing.
[0:37] Speaker 1: Yeah. You know what? I feel like it takes away
[0:40] Speaker 1: from the integrity of the justice system, of the court,
[0:44] Speaker 1: of what happened. You've just got everybody. It's like everybody
[0:47] Speaker 1: left the jury room. There was a mistrial and then
[0:51] Speaker 1: now everybody went rogue and they're just out.
[0:53] Speaker 2: And they're all just blaming the holdout juror. Right.
[0:57] Speaker 1: So after the mistrial, we've got some jurors who have
[1:00] Speaker 1: been publicly speaking out. After roughly 40 hours of deliberations
[1:04] Speaker 1: over six and a half days, 11 jurors were ready
[1:07] Speaker 1: to find Lindsay Clancy not guilty by reason of insanity.
[1:11] Speaker 1: We know that's confirmed now because before, remember, we were
[1:13] Speaker 1: talking about the mistrial and there hadn't actually been a
[1:17] Speaker 1: confirmation of what the 11 to one was. We just
[1:20] Speaker 1: were assuming, cause they were talking about reasonable doubt that
[1:23] Speaker 1: they most likely were the 11. We're all heading towards
[1:26] Speaker 1: the not guilty by reason of insanity. Uh, but one
[1:30] Speaker 1: male juror refused to budge leading to a mistrial.
[1:34] Speaker 2: All right.
[1:35] Speaker 1: So what did the holdout juror actually say? The most
[1:38] Speaker 1: explosive revelation came from four person, Ronnie Carlson, uh, a
[1:42] Speaker 1: former teacher who said the holdout made a stunning admission
[1:46] Speaker 1: during deliberations. She claims that he admitted he had reasonable doubts.
[1:50] Speaker 1: And then I started to fill out the forms. I
[1:53] Speaker 1: was so excited. But then he said, but I'm still
[1:57] Speaker 1: not going to say that she's not guilty by reason
[1:59] Speaker 1: of insanity. That contradiction is what made this so frustrating
[2:02] Speaker 1: for the rest of the panel. He acknowledged the legal
[2:05] Speaker 1: standard had been met, but still refused to vote accordingly.
[2:10] Speaker 1: You know, I don't know. how I feel about that,
[2:14] Speaker 1: I guess, as far as the jurors.
[2:16] Speaker 2: Well, this is as far as she's recounting it. Right.
[2:19] Speaker 1: And this is obviously from her recollection, which I don't
[2:22] Speaker 1: know how accurate that is. I always said I felt
[2:26] Speaker 1: as if someone... like this juror could possibly talk about
[2:30] Speaker 1: reasonable doubt, could say, maybe I feel this way. But
[2:35] Speaker 1: then also the point of the deliberations over a long
[2:37] Speaker 1: period of time is to work through things, to have discussions,
[2:41] Speaker 1: to say, maybe I feel this way, but you can
[2:44] Speaker 1: always change your mind, right? Because what's the movie, 12
[2:47] Speaker 1: Angry Men? I mean, he managed to change an entire
[2:50] Speaker 1: 11 men. To another position.
[2:53] Speaker 2: Right.
[2:54] Speaker 1: So obviously.
[2:55] Speaker 2: And he didn't think that the defendant was not guilty
[3:00] Speaker 2: in that story. He was like, well, wait a minute,
[3:02] Speaker 2: let's not be so quick. Let's go over all the
[3:05] Speaker 2: evidence and then see. And I'm willing to say he's
[3:08] Speaker 2: guilty if he's guilty, but let's go over it. Let's
[3:10] Speaker 2: not just be so quick to get a verdict in.
[3:13] Speaker 2: And that was the issue. And then going over it,
[3:17] Speaker 2: he started to Things got exposed. People started to question more.
[3:22] Speaker 2: And then they kind of respected the process.
[3:25] Speaker 1: I guess it's for me, my takeaway is I don't
[3:28] Speaker 1: know if it was just like he said, oh, I
[3:31] Speaker 1: have reasonable doubt, but I'm not going to vote this way.
[3:35] Speaker 1: I don't know what the discussion really was. No one
[3:37] Speaker 1: was there. Well, I mean, she's recounting it, but I
[3:39] Speaker 1: don't know.
[3:39] Speaker 2: It might have been more like it's leaning towards this,
[3:42] Speaker 2: but I'm not like confident to commit. Yeah.
[3:46] Speaker 1: You know, basically, my takeaway is she's saying you can't
[3:50] Speaker 1: have a discussion and say anything. They just wanted to leave.
[3:55] Speaker 1: He said something about reasonable doubt, and they just wanted
[3:58] Speaker 1: to go home. They wanted it to be done, and
[4:00] Speaker 1: they wanted him to follow along.
[4:01] Speaker 2: Well, they probably wanted that outcome, their outcome, too.
[4:04] Speaker 1: Other jurors may have broken the law as well because
[4:08] Speaker 1: many of the jurors admitted to taking sentencing into consideration.
[4:12] Speaker 1: This was some of the things... This is why they
[4:14] Speaker 1: shouldn't go out and publicly start giving interviews because they...
[4:17] Speaker 1: I mean, they.
[4:18] Speaker 2: No.
[4:19] Speaker 1: They say things that you're just.
[4:20] Speaker 2: And they're tainting like the potential follow-up trial, the second trial.
[4:24] Speaker 1: They believe that Lindsay wouldn't receive proper medical care in prison,
[4:28] Speaker 1: so they wanted her in a psychiatric facility instead, leading
[4:32] Speaker 1: them to the not guilty by reason of insanity verdict.
[4:35] Speaker 2: See, that's not... That's not how it works.
[4:37] Speaker 1: No, because you're not supposed to take the sentencing into
[4:39] Speaker 1: account and your deliberations and what you're... I.
[4:41] Speaker 2: Think we talked about that last time too.
[4:43] Speaker 1: And so basically by giving these interviews and saying, well,
[4:47] Speaker 1: we didn't want to see her in jail because she
[4:49] Speaker 1: wouldn't receive the healthcare she needs. We wanted her in
[4:51] Speaker 1: a psychiatric facility. That's why we wanted to vote not
[4:55] Speaker 1: guilty by reason of insanity. They're taking the sentencing portion
[4:59] Speaker 1: into consideration and their deliberations, which you're not supposed to do.
[5:02] Speaker 1: And then they're going and doing interviews and openly admitting
[5:05] Speaker 1: that they're not following... No.
[5:07] Speaker 2: And now that you mentioned that, which I hadn't heard before,
[5:11] Speaker 2: one of the jurors was complaining that the holdout juror
[5:15] Speaker 2: wanted the instructions to be reread to them by the judge.
[5:19] Speaker 2: And they were annoyed by that.
[5:20] Speaker 1: They were.
[5:21] Speaker 2: Because they're like, we don't need the instructions. We want
[5:23] Speaker 2: her to go to a psych ward. Right.
[5:26] Speaker 1: Yeah, I saw that too. And I thought, so the
[5:29] Speaker 1: man's expressing that he would like to hear them again.
[5:32] Speaker 1: And he wants the judge to read them again. And
[5:34] Speaker 1: you're all annoyed by it because you don't want to
[5:36] Speaker 1: hear it again because you've already come to a conclusion
[5:38] Speaker 1: in your mind of what you want the outcome to be.
[5:41] Speaker 1: But you don't want to give him the space to
[5:43] Speaker 1: be able to listen to it again. Yeah. Three jurors
[5:47] Speaker 1: gave interviews publicly after the mistrial four person Ronnie Carlson
[5:51] Speaker 1: juror Kelly Farina, who is a chef at a senior
[5:54] Speaker 1: center and juror Paula Devlin, a defense contractor, all three
[5:58] Speaker 1: expressed deep frustration. They talked about frustration with the juror
[6:03] Speaker 1: and also about his behavior in the room when they
[6:07] Speaker 1: were deliberating. So multiple jurors on the panel were nurses,
[6:10] Speaker 1: and when they weighed in on the medical psychiatric evidence
[6:13] Speaker 1: about Clancy's postpartum condition and medication, the holdout allegedly dismissed
[6:18] Speaker 1: their expertise. The holdout also reportedly suggested at one point
[6:22] Speaker 1: that the judge reread the definition of reasonable doubt to
[6:25] Speaker 1: the jury and request the other jurors reject it. Well, okay,
[6:29] Speaker 1: that's interesting, though, because that's kind of contradictory. If they're
[6:32] Speaker 1: saying they have a problem with him because he didn't
[6:36] Speaker 1: want to listen to the other nurses who are giving
[6:40] Speaker 1: medical advice, but then he says, I want to listen
[6:43] Speaker 1: to reasonable doubt, and I want to hear the definition again,
[6:46] Speaker 1: and they're like, no, you can't hear it. But you
[6:49] Speaker 1: need to listen to these nurses. I mean, I'm just
[6:51] Speaker 1: saying that's contradictory. They're basically saying, please give weight to
[6:55] Speaker 1: these people and let them talk. But then when he
[6:57] Speaker 1: wants to hear the instructions again... from the judge they're saying.
[7:00] Speaker 2: No yeah i question these people.
[7:03] Speaker 1: Um what was the atmosphere in the jury room so
[7:05] Speaker 1: deliberations got heated enough that six alternate jurors seated outside
[7:09] Speaker 1: the room could hear the arguments there was name calling
[7:12] Speaker 1: and raised voices at the same time the jurors described
[7:16] Speaker 1: moments of camaraderie hugging practicing self-care to get through it
[7:20] Speaker 1: and the three women who have spoken out said they
[7:22] Speaker 1: formed genuine friendships through the experience um The three jurors
[7:27] Speaker 1: were critical of the prosecution's approach while finding defense attorney
[7:31] Speaker 1: Kevin Reddington's style more authentic and persuasive. They clearly sided
[7:35] Speaker 1: with the defense's framing of Clancy as a woman in
[7:38] Speaker 1: a severe psychiatric crisis driven by postpartum psychosis and an
[7:43] Speaker 1: over-medicated state.
[7:45] Speaker 2: You know, remember the gentleman that we interviewed, Kevin Harper?
[7:50] Speaker 1: Yes.
[7:51] Speaker 2: He went to jail for 14 years. Mm-hmm. For killing
[7:58] Speaker 2: his son, which he didn't do.
[7:59] Speaker 1: It was the junk science of the shaken baby syndrome. Remember,
[8:03] Speaker 1: he was playing like the airplane game.
[8:05] Speaker 2: But moving past that. So now we're interviewing him, getting
[8:09] Speaker 2: to know his story. And he had shared that one
[8:12] Speaker 2: of the jury members was not selected, was eliminated. Or
[8:18] Speaker 2: potential jury members was eliminated because she was getting teary
[8:22] Speaker 2: eyed and crying. And they talked to her and she had.
[8:26] Speaker 2: Do you remember this? She had disclosed that she couldn't
[8:30] Speaker 2: find him not guilty because she already has like it
[8:34] Speaker 2: all in her head that he's guilty, whether it's because
[8:37] Speaker 2: of what she heard or whatever, just based on his looks,
[8:39] Speaker 2: whatever it was. But she admitted it like in a
[8:42] Speaker 2: way of like, I can't do this because I can
[8:45] Speaker 2: only see guilty and that horrible situation for that child.
[8:48] Speaker 2: So they let her go, obviously. And then he said
[8:51] Speaker 2: that he thought at that point, I'm a dead man.
[8:54] Speaker 1: Because she was representative.
[8:55] Speaker 2: Because how many other people already have been convicted guilty
[9:00] Speaker 2: without having even started the trial? So these jury members
[9:04] Speaker 2: went back there, and they probably already had a conviction
[9:09] Speaker 2: of some sort in their head before deliberating.
[9:12] Speaker 1: You're saying like they probably already had come to the conclusion.
[9:16] Speaker 2: Or they were stuck on it. At some point, they
[9:19] Speaker 2: got stuck on it, and they weren't going to be swayed.
[9:22] Speaker 2: And they weren't going to let anyone- talk to them otherwise.
[9:33] Speaker 1: This is probably an unpopular opinion, but I have respect
[9:35] Speaker 1: for the one jury member who was not persuaded.
[9:38] Speaker 2: Yeah, he went up against 11 people.
[9:39] Speaker 1: And you know, I feel they're doxing this man. I mean,
[9:43] Speaker 1: people know where he lives. They're harassing him.
[9:45] Speaker 2: They're identifying him without identifying him. Right.
[9:48] Speaker 1: And he's getting hate.
[9:49] Speaker 2: And they're making it like he kind of debunked And
[9:53] Speaker 2: bungled up the whole jury process. Right.
[9:56] Speaker 1: But the jury process is exactly what it is meant
[9:58] Speaker 1: to be. It is unanimous. in order to get a conviction.
[10:02] Speaker 1: It is a unanimous jury. That is the state level.
[10:06] Speaker 1: That is the threshold. If one member does not go
[10:11] Speaker 1: along because he's stuck to his convictions... you know, that's
[10:16] Speaker 1: what a jury is. That's what it's for. You know,
[10:18] Speaker 1: they act like this, like he did something wrong. He
[10:21] Speaker 1: stuck to what he believed in and he could not
[10:24] Speaker 1: be persuaded. And as far as him expressing reasonable doubt,
[10:28] Speaker 1: I don't know the situation with that. I wasn't there.
[10:31] Speaker 1: I don't know what he said. I don't know what
[10:32] Speaker 1: the language was. I don't know if he was just
[10:34] Speaker 1: going through things in his mind and talking and they
[10:37] Speaker 1: heard him say reasonable doubt. So they jumped on it
[10:39] Speaker 1: because they just wanted to go home. I don't know.
[10:41] Speaker 1: But at the end of the day, He was pretty
[10:44] Speaker 1: steadfast in not allowing 11 people to change his mind.
[10:49] Speaker 2: And he's not running around doing interviews trying to be popular.
[10:51] Speaker 1: No, he's probably hiding out somewhere.
[10:53] Speaker 2: He probably went back to work.
[10:55] Speaker 1: Yeah.
[10:55] Speaker 2: He's a normal dude.
[10:56] Speaker 1: I mean, they did find he was arrested, I believe,
[10:58] Speaker 1: for something, like some type of physical altercation with a
[11:01] Speaker 1: nephew or Of course, now they're, you know, trying to find,
[11:05] Speaker 1: but you know, did they do that with the 11
[11:07] Speaker 1: other jurors? What about them? Did they have some type
[11:11] Speaker 1: of criminal history or something? I don't know, but nobody's
[11:13] Speaker 1: looking into them. They're just looking into, you know, the
[11:15] Speaker 1: one holdout juror. But anyway, let's go on. The president
[11:20] Speaker 1: said Sunday that he will not be pardoning Lindsay Clancy.
[11:24] Speaker 1: It is actually a state.
[11:25] Speaker 2: Situation, not a federal one, which is why didn't your
[11:28] Speaker 2: Reddington guy know that one?
[11:29] Speaker 1: This is what we talked about before when he had
[11:31] Speaker 1: said on Good Morning America that he would ask the
[11:33] Speaker 1: president for a pardon.
[11:35] Speaker 2: It might just be a stretch just to get more
[11:38] Speaker 2: publicity on the case or something.
[11:41] Speaker 1: He acknowledged the tragedy of the case nonetheless. It's a
[11:44] Speaker 1: very sad situation. I certainly heard that. But look, it's
[11:47] Speaker 1: very sad. There is no winner there. There's no win
[11:49] Speaker 1: no matter what you do. There's three children that are dead.
[11:52] Speaker 2: You wonder if the president gets it. And he's like, what? Oh, crap.
[11:55] Speaker 2: This is a big case. You don't know which way
[11:57] Speaker 2: to go. Yeah. And he's like, oh, wait. It's a
[11:59] Speaker 2: stay case? Sweet. I got an out. Yeah.
[12:02] Speaker 1: He's like, this has nothing to do with me. The
[12:05] Speaker 1: comments came after Clancy's defense attorney, Kevin Reddington, made a
[12:08] Speaker 1: direct public appeal to the president on Good Morning America
[12:11] Speaker 1: following the mistrial, asking him to consider using his influence
[12:15] Speaker 1: on the client's behalf. Reddington stopped short of asking for
[12:18] Speaker 1: a formal pardon, recognizing that there was a federal state distinction,
[12:23] Speaker 1: but suggested the president could still have an impact as
[12:25] Speaker 1: prosecutors decide whether to retry Lindsay Clancy or not. The
[12:31] Speaker 1: president praised Reddington as a very good attorney and expressed
[12:34] Speaker 1: a hope for resolution without committing to any action. I
[12:37] Speaker 1: hope they can work something out, he said. All right,
[12:40] Speaker 1: what's your take? Now, we know that Lindsay Clancy will
[12:43] Speaker 1: be back in court on September 29th with Reddington representing her. Again,
[12:49] Speaker 1: we talked about this in another episode, but this is
[12:52] Speaker 1: not a retrial. I've seen people posting You know, her
[12:55] Speaker 1: trial begins September 29th. That's not correct. It's a status hearing,
[12:59] Speaker 1: which I assume the prosecutors are going to come up
[13:02] Speaker 1: with whatever they decide to do at that point. Are
[13:05] Speaker 1: they going to move forward and retry her and have
[13:08] Speaker 1: the whole trial again? Are they going to offer a plea?
[13:11] Speaker 1: What's the defense going to say?
[13:12] Speaker 2: Will that hearing be continued?
[13:14] Speaker 1: I don't know. I don't know. It'll be interesting to
[13:16] Speaker 1: see what happens, what the prosecution says. You know, on
[13:20] Speaker 1: one hand, the prosecution has a moral... I mean, a
[13:23] Speaker 1: moral obligation to represent the three children. Yeah. For them
[13:28] Speaker 1: to just not retry it. Nothing.
[13:29] Speaker 2: That's what I said earlier. I think they got to.
[13:33] Speaker 1: You think they're going to retry the case?
[13:34] Speaker 2: Can't sweep this one under a rug.
[13:36] Speaker 1: There's always the option of a plea deal.
[13:38] Speaker 2: Well, okay.
[13:39] Speaker 1: Or that.
[13:39] Speaker 2: But it's not going to be, we're letting it go.
[13:42] Speaker 1: Yeah. I can't imagine that being.
[13:44] Speaker 2: I mean, I know they've done that in the past.
[13:45] Speaker 2: I've seen cases like that.
[13:47] Speaker 1: But I can't imagine the prosecution is just going to say, nevermind.
[13:50] Speaker 2: No.
[13:51] Speaker 1: She's free to go. There's no justice at that point.
[13:54] Speaker 1: And I don't know what justice even looks like in
[13:56] Speaker 1: this case.
[13:57] Speaker 2: And Reddington might want to agree to something because she
[13:59] Speaker 2: needs care.
[14:01] Speaker 1: She does.
[14:01] Speaker 2: She needs to be put somewhere.
[14:02] Speaker 1: Right. Exactly.
[14:04] Speaker 2: You know, what's he going to do? Be like, okay,
[14:05] Speaker 2: I got you off scot-free. Now, good luck.
[14:09] Speaker 1: I don't know.
[14:09] Speaker 2: Figuring out your life. So he might see it as, hey, okay,
[14:14] Speaker 2: this is a happy medium where you're going to be
[14:17] Speaker 2: somewhere and you'll get some treatment and you can try
[14:20] Speaker 2: to recover. Right. All right.
[14:21] Speaker 1: Well, that is an update on the Lindsay Clancy case.
[14:25] Speaker 1: We will obviously continue to follow what happens on September
[14:28] Speaker 1: 29th at the status hearing. It will be interesting to
[14:30] Speaker 1: see what happens with the prosecution, whether the case is
[14:32] Speaker 1: retried or if there's a plea deal. So thanks for
[14:37] Speaker 1: following us and thanks for listening. As always, please send
[14:41] Speaker 1: me a DM on Instagram. If you have recommendations for
[14:44] Speaker 1: any cases you would like us to discuss, please follow
[14:47] Speaker 1: Legally Brunette wherever you listen to podcasts. And if you
[14:50] Speaker 1: have the chance, leave a review for us too we
[14:53] Speaker 1: love to read those so thank you guys for listening
[14:55] Speaker 1: we appreciate you

Shows are listed from Apple Podcasts' charts and directory, and Podcast Index where it is used. Every show and episode belongs to its publisher and plays from the publisher's own feed; this site hosts none of them.